FF-676 - Public Employment Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

vacation request procedure is predominant within the District or within other Orange County school districts. Had the District done so, its case for change would be more compelling. As it is, even in the face of no opposing evidence from the Union, the Panel finds that the District proposal is not justified by any demonstrated need. Article 13- Leaves District Position- The District is proposing that Article 13.8.4, which pennits employees to take 2 paid personal necessity days per year without charge to sick leave, be suspended during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The District proposes possible reinstatement of this benefit in 2014-1 S. The District asserts that this proposal is related to wages and, presumably, is proposed in order to alleviate its aforementioned inability to pay: With respect to internal comparability," the District intro~uced uncontroverted evidence that ASTA, APGA, and CSEA have agreed to the District's proposal. The Union has proposed modifying Article 13.12, which states that the District shall grant unpaid leave as specified under the Family Medical Leave Act, by adding "not run concurrent with sick leave, differential pay, etc." The District opposes this proposed addition.to Article 13.12 because it could increase length of an employee's absence by permitting FMLA leave to commence after exhaustion of all paid leaves. Union Position- The Union did not argue that the District's proposal to suspend the personal· necessity days was unjustified .. In fact, its representative indicated that the Union was willing to agree to the suspension of personal necessity days, but it wished to do so year by year in a side letter. The Union presented no evidence in support of its proposal to allow unpaid F~ leave to run on a non-concurrent basis with paid leaves. Panel Discussion/Recommendation- The District's proposal to suspend personal necessity days during 2012-13 and 2013 .. 14, with possible reinstatement in 2014-15, is justified by its need to save personnel costs. AFSCME members would be subject only to the same sacrifices made by the employees in the 3 other bargaining units. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the District's proposal under Article 13.8.4 be incorporated into the CBA. 20
With regard to the Union's proposal on FMLA leave, the FMLA permits, but does not require, employers to run unpaid leave under the Act concurrently with paid leaves. While the Act does not require such concurrent running of paid and unpaid leaves, many employers do so to avoid the very concern. raised by the District, i.e., employees will stack paid and unpaid leaves and be away from work for longer periods than they otherwise would. In view of the Union's failure to produce any evidence that this practice is used in other units within the District or within other school districts, and its failure to produce anecdotal evidence that its members have been banned under 1he practice of nmning paid and unpaid leaves concurrently, the Panel finds no legitimate reason to change t.he status quo. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that Article 13.12 remain as Currently written. Article 14- Union Rights District Position- The District is proposing language under Article 14. 7 that would require employee union representatives and officers to provide advance notice and scheduling of release time to.perfonn their Union duties. The District asserts that it is reasonable that AFSCME stewards and officers provide prior notice for their release time so that work schedules can be coordinated with the immediate supervisor. Scheduling concerns should be resolved between the parties. The District had also provided contract language from comparable Orange County school districts that require prior notice for release time. Union Position- The Union presented no evidence in support of its opposition to the District's proposal. Panel Discussion/Recommendation- The notion that employee representatives can up and leave their assignments without notice to, and authorization from, their supervisor is unacceptable. Conversely, unreasonably restricting release time is equally unacceptable. It appears to the Panel that the District's proposed language addresses the former, but not the latter. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that the District's proposal on Article _ 14. 7 be adopted with the addition of a final sentence that states: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, release time under this Article shall not be unreasonably denied." 21
Page 1 and 2: FF-676 BEFORE...!.BE PUBLIC El\tIJ.
Page 3 and 4: (a) The panel shall, within 10 days
Page 5 and 6: 1. The District is a public school
Page 7 and 8: 9. The District's poor financial co
Page 9 and 10: 2013, it has not accepted the Distr
Page 11 and 12: The District has established that,
Page 13 and 14: service workers and bus drivers who
Page 15 and 16: extra duty assignments and allow th
Page 17 and 18: Article 6- Transfer Procedures Dist
Page 19: funded cost of living adjustment. F
Page 23 and 24: ecommends a compromise solution to
Page 25 and 26: District Proposal- Earlier this yea
Page 27 and 28: Issued on November 15, 2012 William
Page 29 and 30: Transportation Reductions in Work Y
Page 31 and 32: The panel majority ignores the role

FF-676 - Public Employment Relations Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?